PLENTY of actors aspire to direct. Many of them give it a try. Some even succeed. But it’s a rare actor who walks away with an Academy Award for a behind-the-camera debut.
Enter Christine Lahti. Though she’s best-known for her work as an actress on the now-defunct television series Chicago Hope and in such feature films as Swing Shift, Housekeeping, Running on Empty, and Gross Anatomy, her current bio begins not with her thespian accomplishments, but with the simple identifier " Academy Award–winning director Christine Lahti. " That’s because in 1996, Lahti took home the Oscar for Best Live-Action Short Film for Lieberman in Love, a movie in which she also starred. And now, instead of resting on her laurels, Lahti’s at it again — this time making her feature-film directing debut with My First Mister, starring Albert Brooks and Leelee Sobieski.
Q: Why directing? When did you first develop an interest in working on this side of the camera?
A: Well, it started kind of by default. I had just given birth to twins and I was looking to kind of get back into the acting loop after being out of it for a while, and there were literally no interesting parts. I was 43, and nothing really appealed to me. And then this opportunity to direct a short film kind of landed in my lap, and I thought, well, let me try. It was a short story I wanted to direct and I could direct, and [I figured] I’ll be in it, and who knows, I don’t know if I’ll like it or not. Well, it turned out I really took to it. I loved it.
Q: Obviously it’s a completely different process from acting.
A: Yes. However, the storyteller in me that has always been very active as an actress was really what I had to use as a director, and even more so. I’ve always been interested in telling stories, and as an actor, you know, you’re just telling one aspect of a story. And I knew that I’d be really comfortable working with actors; that was going to be a given. My challenge was how to use that pesky camera! How do I help tell the story with the camera? And that’s really what I loved learning about, and I’m still learning so much about that.
Q: Does the camera almost feel like another character to deal with?
A: No. The camera felt like just another way to tell the story. A visual way to tell the story. You have the characters and you have the actors and you have the dialogue and you have the emotional arc of the scene, and then, okay, so how can the camera also reveal the subtext of what’s going on between these two characters? So it’s not really like another character; it’s just a deeper, added kind of storytelling element.
Q: Do you think that your background as an actress makes you a better director?
A: I do. I mean, certainly the material I’m drawn to is character-driven, so I think performances are really, really critical to the kinds of movies that I’m going to be directing. And my understanding of how to work with actors is, I think, a really big plus. I became my dream director. Every actor works differently, so I’m sure I’m not every actor’s dream director, but the actors I hired were mostly from the theater, [people] whom I’ve known from the New York stage from long ago and [who] are friends, and I knew that their process would be similar to mine. And I demanded two weeks’ rehearsal, which was sort of unheard-of for small independent movies. So that part of it I was very comfortable with.
Q: You shot the film in 29 days. That seems real short —
A: Uhh ... really short.
Q: Why such a short process, and what was that like?
A: It was really short because it was a low-budget little independent movie, and we didn’t have the budget to shoot another day. So what I had to do to compensate was I had to be so prepared. During the two weeks of rehearsal, I spent a lot of time not only with my actors, but with the writer and my cinematographer, and really, really getting prepared. We’d go to locations and rehearse on location when we could. So that was the only way I could do it in 29 days. It was very intense. You know, for my first feature, to do it in that amount of time was really a challenge. I loved it.
Q: What scares you most as a director? Are there different fears than when you’re acting?
A: Hmm. You know, making my day, I guess, is a big fear. How to get it all in and never move on until I make sure that I got the scene that I want. That’s a big one. I didn’t really fear that; I was just constantly aware of that as a challenge. I had to keep my eye on the story; no one else on the whole crew, including the actors, really had their eye on the story like I had to have. You know, everyone had their own area of interest and expertise, and mine was to tell the story. I couldn’t let all the pressure of " Okay, we’re losing the light " and " Oh, the money " and " Oh, the location guy " and this problem and this problem [distract me]; I had to somehow just focus, keep my focus on the actors and on telling the story.
Q: Are you more worried about how the film will do than you’d be if you were appearing in the movie? Do you feel more responsible?
A: I guess, as an actor, it’s more important that the movie makes money. As the director, I think my next job will come from people seeing the movie, not necessarily the box office. You know, as an actor, like for Albert, I bet it’s high stakes; if this is a big moneymaker, it’ll help him get his next film. I don’t think that’s the case with me. I don’t know, I might be wrong. I think it’s more of the right person seeing the movie and saying, " Okay, you’d be good for my movie. "
Q: Tell me about the primary relationship in this film, between a 17-year-old girl and a 49-year-old man. Did you worry about how to portray this relationship, since it could be considered controversial?
A: Well, I would never in a million years make a Lolita movie — that’s not my fantasy. I know there are a lot of men who have that fantasy; it is so not my fantasy. And I won’t go to those movies. I find them nauseating. You know, the men get older, the women get younger, and it’s just pathetic! I won’t go, and nor will any of my women friends go to those movies. And even a lot of my male friends find that just desperate. But I wanted to make a movie about the commonality between two people who are incredibly different, and their age difference was just part of that difference. A huge part of the difference. Being of different generations, different worlds, different genders, they couldn’t be more different, and what they find is that they have so much in common in terms of their loneliness. But there was sexual tension that I wanted to deal with and then have each of the characters move past it. Not to deny it — just that, okay, that’s there; now let’s move on.
Q: Tell me about the experience of winning an Academy Award.
A: Well, it was astonishing, because it was the first time out of the gate, and sitting next to my filmmaker husband, who’s got this whole body of work — you know, it was awkward and wonderful and incredibly exciting, but also a tiny bit ridiculous. But boy, it was very encouraging.
Q: Of all the work that you’ve done, whether it’s film or television or stage or whatever, what’s the work you’re most proud of?
A: Housekeeping. I think it’s a great movie. I think the theme of being an outsider is repeated in [My First Mister] — you know, exploring the world of outsiders, people that don’t fit in, some who are trying to and some who are rebelling against the norm. And loneliness being a theme as well; they share such similar themes. I guess it’s what I’m really drawn to. And the notion of having a second chance.
Q: What do you think you’d be doing now if you hadn’t become an actress?
A: I can’t imagine. I really can’t. It’s in my blood.
Q: What was your major in college?
A: Languages at first, and then theater arts. I had a dream for a little while of being an interpreter at the UN and traveling a lot and speaking lots of languages.
Q: Has Hollywood felt like a different place since September 11?
A: Yeah. The world feels like a different place. I mean, all bets are off. It’s a totally different world. I mean, in terms of movies, I hope that there are fewer violent, sort of negative, mean-spirited movies that are churned out. That would be okay by me.
Q: Do you think your work will be affected? Do you have a different vision for the things that you’re going to do?
A: No. I still am attracted to the same kinds of movies, like My First Mister, that kind of movie. What I love about that movie, what drew me to the script, is that real thin line between comedy and tragedy; it really walks that line, and I think in my life I find that some of the funniest moments are in the most tragic moments, and vice-versa. It’s a way of dealing with a lot of pain and sadness; humor to me is a real saving grace.
Q: You’ve done movies and TV and stage, and you’ve acted and directed. Are there still things in the business that you’d like to tackle?
A: Oh, there’s roles on stage that I will, someday, get to: some Shakespeare and some Chekhov and Ibsen and Tennessee Williams. So I’m looking forward to the stage being another chapter that I go back to. But really, I want to tell more stories about women that aren’t being told. I feel really excited about this new chapter, being a director.
Q: You did Gross Anatomy back in 1989, and then you did Chicago Hope, so you’ve got two medical roles in your history. Coincidence?
A: Well, I’ve always been offered doctor parts and lawyer parts. Because I’m tall, I guess. I don’t know. Yeah, coincidence. I mean, I’m interested in playing complex characters, but they just happened to both be doctors.
Q: Did you ever take a gross-anatomy class?
A: Uh-uh. But I did research and, oh man, that’s gross. That’s really gross.
Tamara Wieder can be reached at twieder[a]phx.com
